Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ SALON EDITORIAL BY DAVID TALBOT (04/17/98)

Well said! It's about time someone called it like it is. What is it about President Bubba that draws out these dark, right-wing monsters? Is it the lack of Communists abroad?
Of course he shouldn't be fooling with the hired help. Most folks agree on that but are willing to leave it to Hillary to meet out just punishment for his sexual peccadilloes.
But this millionaire investigating journalists and paying off witnesses is more than a little frightening in its implications. And the Wall Street Journal should slough off its pecksniffian puffery and reapply itself to fair and accurate reporting. After all, it's not as if it's some low budget Internet publication.
Keep up the good work.
-- Mike Burns
I was particularly appreciative of your editorial, having done the research for "Bartley's Believe It or Not," an extended critique of WSJ editorials published in Columbia Journalism Review for July/August 1996.
Unfortunately, for reasons I have never understood, a key question was never put to WSJ publisher Peter Kann: Why does the WSJ have a double standard of accuracy and fairness -- a tough standard for the news columns and a weak one for editorials? I don't think it's too late for the question to be put to him, particularly in light of his annual publisher's statements extolling the WSJ's public service.
To provide context for the question -- I'm really getting presumptuous here -- Salon could, for example, do a piece contrasting the disparate treatment of two leading independent counsels, Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr, in its editorials. My recollection is that the WSJ published literally dozens of editorials savagely attacking Walsh for allegedly wasting millions of dollars investigating Iran-contra, but has published not one editorial criticizing Starr for anything whatsoever.
-- Morton Mintz
In his article answering the Wall Street Journal, David Talbot writes, "The Journal's editorialist also implies, in a particularly garbled passage, that Salon has a sinister relationship of sorts with White House spinmeister Sidney Blumenthal. This is a smear, pure and simple."
If this is a smear, then what about Salon's casting aspersions on anyone who has had even the remotest connection or relationship to Richard Mellon Scaife? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And you really didn't answer the charge, either. The fact that you may publish articles by dissenting columnists (Horowitz and Paglia) does not negate the Wall Street Journal's claims. Is there a relationship between Salon and Blumenthal? And if so, what is it?
Mind you, your relationship with Blumenthal has little to do with the truth or falsehoods per se of your articles. They must be answered on their own terms, just as the attacks on Clinton and his supporters must be answered on their own terms.
-- Gary Schnitzer
Please don't commit suicide. The Journal has attacked many fine people. The only surprising thing is they didn't do a "Who is Salon?"
The Journal is essential reading for news. The editorials are great for the bird cage.
-- Barry Johnson
The mere fact that the WSJ and the other shameless conspiracy whores have been forced to mention your name is a stunning victory in its own right. Besides, you have now shamed mainstream papers (like my hometown Star Tribune) into sending reporters to Arkansas to talk to Caryn Mann and others.
I myself, ever since I discovered you last month, have been forwarding copies of your articles to anyone who I think might be listening.
Hillary said it best when she told the world two months back that this was going to be a fight to the death. What I didn't realize at the time was that the fight wasn't just between the GOP Congress and the Clintons, but involved the whole damned far-right apparatus. And that one man, Richard Mellon Scaife, was linked to virtually every GOP and religious right player.
If Scaife goes down, he takes down the whole far-right establishment, undoing decades of crap and mumbo-jumbo, just in time for Al Gore to become president and start pointing the nation in the right direction. There's already a critical mass of progressive support among the people: The mainstreamers either don't know this or are trying to pretend (through use of highly slanted polling techniques) that this isn't the case.
If the GOP is discredited in time for November '98 and 2000, a huge power vacuum would open up, and smart progressives should already be readying themselves to take advantage of it. Hell, they should be out there right now, working to make it happen.
-- Tamara Baker
N E X T+P A G E+| More on Salon and the Wall Street Journal

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________ SALON EDITORIAL BY DAVID TALBOT (04/17/98)
	Well said! It's about time someone called it like it is. What is it about President Bubba that draws out these dark, right-wing monsters? Is it the lack of Communists abroad? Of course he shouldn't be fooling with the hired help. Most folks agree on that but are willing to leave it to Hillary to meet out just punishment for his sexual peccadilloes. But this millionaire investigating journalists and paying off witnesses is more than a little frightening in its implications. And the Wall Street Journal should slough off its pecksniffian puffery and reapply itself to fair and accurate reporting. After all, it's not as if it's some low budget Internet publication. Keep up the good work. -- Mike Burns I was particularly appreciative of your editorial, having done the research for "Bartley's Believe It or Not," an extended critique of WSJ editorials published in Columbia Journalism Review for July/August 1996. Unfortunately, for reasons I have never understood, a key question was never put to WSJ publisher Peter Kann: Why does the WSJ have a double standard of accuracy and fairness -- a tough standard for the news columns and a weak one for editorials? I don't think it's too late for the question to be put to him, particularly in light of his annual publisher's statements extolling the WSJ's public service. To provide context for the question -- I'm really getting presumptuous here -- Salon could, for example, do a piece contrasting the disparate treatment of two leading independent counsels, Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr, in its editorials. My recollection is that the WSJ published literally dozens of editorials savagely attacking Walsh for allegedly wasting millions of dollars investigating Iran-contra, but has published not one editorial criticizing Starr for anything whatsoever. -- Morton Mintz In his article answering the Wall Street Journal, David Talbot writes, "The Journal's editorialist also implies, in a particularly garbled passage, that Salon has a sinister relationship of sorts with White House spinmeister Sidney Blumenthal. This is a smear, pure and simple." If this is a smear, then what about Salon's casting aspersions on anyone who has had even the remotest connection or relationship to Richard Mellon Scaife? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And you really didn't answer the charge, either. The fact that you may publish articles by dissenting columnists (Horowitz and Paglia) does not negate the Wall Street Journal's claims. Is there a relationship between Salon and Blumenthal? And if so, what is it? Mind you, your relationship with Blumenthal has little to do with the truth or falsehoods per se of your articles. They must be answered on their own terms, just as the attacks on Clinton and his supporters must be answered on their own terms. -- Gary Schnitzer Please don't commit suicide. The Journal has attacked many fine people. The only surprising thing is they didn't do a "Who is Salon?" The Journal is essential reading for news. The editorials are great for the bird cage. -- Barry Johnson The mere fact that the WSJ and the other shameless conspiracy whores have been forced to mention your name is a stunning victory in its own right. Besides, you have now shamed mainstream papers (like my hometown Star Tribune) into sending reporters to Arkansas to talk to Caryn Mann and others. I myself, ever since I discovered you last month, have been forwarding copies of your articles to anyone who I think might be listening. Hillary said it best when she told the world two months back that this was going to be a fight to the death. What I didn't realize at the time was that the fight wasn't just between the GOP Congress and the Clintons, but involved the whole damned far-right apparatus. And that one man, Richard Mellon Scaife, was linked to virtually every GOP and religious right player. If Scaife goes down, he takes down the whole far-right establishment, undoing decades of crap and mumbo-jumbo, just in time for Al Gore to become president and start pointing the nation in the right direction. There's already a critical mass of progressive support among the people: The mainstreamers either don't know this or are trying to pretend (through use of highly slanted polling techniques) that this isn't the case. If the GOP is discredited in time for November '98 and 2000, a huge power vacuum would open up, and smart progressives should already be readying themselves to take advantage of it. Hell, they should be out there right now, working to make it happen. -- Tamara Baker N E X T+P A G E+\| More on Salon and the Wall Street Journal